Axle for Trailers from China –
DGAD Initiates Anti-dumping Investigation on Complaint of Yorkshire Transport Eqpt
[Anti-dumping Initiation Notification No.14/17/2015-DGAD
dated 28th December 2015]
Subject: Anti-dumping investigation
concerning imports of ‘Axle for Trailers’ originating in or exported from China
PR.
M/s Yorkshire Transport Equipment
(India) Pvt. Ltd. on behalf of domestic industry
(hereinafter referred to as the applicant) has filed an application before the Designated
Authority (hereinafter also referred to as the Authority) in accordance with
the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 as amended from time to time (hereinafter also
referred to as the Act) and Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and
Collection of Anti-Dumping Duty on Dumped articles and for Determination of
injury) Rules, 1995 as amended from time to time (hereinafter also referred to
as the Rules) for initiation of anti-dumping investigation and imposition of anti dumping duty concerning imports of Axle for Trailers
(hereinafter also referred to as the subject goods), originating in or exported
from China PR (hereinafter also referred to as the subject countries).
2. And
whereas, the Authority prima facie finds that sufficient evidence of dumping of
the subject goods, originating in or exported from the subject countries,
‘injury’ to the domestic industry and causal link between the alleged dumping
and ‘injury’ exist to justify initiation of an anti-dumping investigation; the
Authority hereby initiates an investigation into the alleged dumping, and
consequent injury to the domestic industry in terms of Rule 5 of the Rules, to
determine the existence, degree and effect of alleged dumping and to recommend
the amount of antidumping duty, which if levied, would be adequate to remove the
‘injury’ to the domestic industry.
Domestic Industry & Standing
3. The
Application has been filed by M/s Yorkshire Transport Equipment (India) Pvt. Ltd. on behalf of domestic industry.
4. As
per the claims of the applicant M/s Yorkshire Transport Equipment (India) Pvt. Ltd. is the largest Indian manufacturer of the subject
goods. As per the evidence available on record, the production of the applicant
companies constitutes “a major proportion” of the domestic production. The
Authority, therefore, determines that the applicant companies constitute
eligible domestic industry within the meaning of Rule 2 (b) of the Anti Dumping Rules and the application satisfies the
criteria of standing in terms of Rule 5 (3) of the Rules supra.
Product under consideration
5. The
product under consideration in the present application is ‘Axle for Trailers’ originating
in or exported from China PR. An ‘Axle for Trailer’ is essentially an
assemblage of a beam/bar and other components such as brake drum, brake shoes,
bearings etc which connects two wheels of a Trailer
and renders the functions as axle for the Trailer. The subject goods are
manufactured and sold in different variants. However, the basic product
characteristics and end use of all these variants remains the same and all such
types of Trailer Axles is covered in the scope of the PUC since these variants
constitute a homogenous PUC with comparable basic characteristics and similar
functions/uses.
6. Product under consideration is a
vehicle part and accessory, falling under Chapter 87 of the Customs Tariff Act,
1975 and further under custom sub-heading no. 87169010. Since the subheading is
not a dedicated classification, the petitioner submitted that the customs classification
is indicative only and in no way, binding upon the product scope.
However, Axles for vehicles other than
the Trailers are excluded from the scope of PUC.
Like Article
7. The
applicant has claimed that there is no known difference between the subject goods
exported from subject countries and that produced by the domestic industry. As submitted
by the applicants, the product under consideration produced by the domestic industry
and imported from subject countries are comparable in terms of essential
product characteristics such as physical & chemical characteristics,
manufacturing process & technology, functions & uses, product specifications,
pricing, distribution & marketing and tariff classification of the goods.
Consumers can use and are using the two interchangeably. The applicants have
further claimed that two are technically and commercially substitutable and,
hence, should be treated as ‘like article’ under the Rules. Therefore, for the
purpose of the present investigation, the Authority treats the subject goods
produced by the applicants in India as ‘Like Article’ to the subject goods
being imported from the subject countries/territories.
Countries involved
8. The
present investigation is in respect of alleged dumping of the product under consideration
from China PR (referred to as the “subject country”).
Normal Value
9. Applicants
have claimed that China PR should be treated as a nonmarket economy and
determined normal value in accordance with Para 7 and 8 of Annexure I of the
Rules. The applicants have claimed normal value for China PR on the basis of
cost of production in India, duly adjusted. In terms of Para 8 in Annexure 1 to
the Rules it is presumed that the producers of the subject goods in China PR
are operating under non market economy conditions. In view of the above
non-market economy presumption and subject to rebuttal of the same by the
responding exporters from china PR, normal value of the subject goods in China
PR has been estimated in terms of Para 7 of Annexure 1 to the Rules.
Export Price
10. Export
price of the subject goods from the subject countries has been estimated by considering
transaction-wise import data collected from secondary sources i.e. IBIS. Adjustments
have been made on account of inland freight, port expenses, ocean freight, marine
insurance, commission, credit cost and bank charges in
the exporting country to arrive at ex-factory export price.
Dumping Margin
11. The
normal value has been compared with the export price at ex-factory level. There
is sufficient prima facie evidence that the normal value of the subject goods
in the subject country are higher than the ex-factory export price, indicating,
that the subject goods are being dumped into the Indian market by the exporters
from the subject country. The dumping margins are estimated to be above de minimis.
Injury and Causal Link
12. Information
furnished by the applicants has been considered for assessment of injury to the
domestic industry. The applicants have furnished evidence regarding the injury
having taken place as a result of the alleged dumping in the form of increased
volume of dumped imports in absolute terms and in relation to production and
consumption, price undercutting, price underselling and consequent significant
adverse impact in terms of decline in production, sales, market share,
inventories. There is sufficient prima facie evidence of the ‘injury’ being
suffered by the domestic industry caused by dumped imports from subject country
to justify initiation of an antidumping investigation.
Period of Investigation (POI)
13. The
period of investigation for the present investigation is from 1st April, 2014
to 30th June 2015 (15 months). The injury investigation period will
however cover the periods April 2011-March 2012, April 2012-March 2013, April
2013-March 2014 and the period of investigation.
Submission of information
14. The
known exporters in the subject country, the Government of the subject countries
through their embassy in India, the importers and users in India known to be
concerned with the product are being addressed separately to submit relevant
information in the form and manner prescribed and to make their views known to
the Authority at the following address:
The Designated Authority,
Directorate General of Anti-Dumping & Allied Duties,
Ministry of Commerce & Industry, Department of Commerce
4th Floor, Jeevan Tara Building, 5
Parliament Street,
New Delhi -110001.
15. Any
other interested party may also make its submissions relevant to the
investigation in the prescribed form and manner within the time limit set out
below.
Time limit
16. Any
information relating to the present investigation and any request for hearing should
be sent in writing so as to reach the Authority at the address mentioned above
not later than forty days (40 Days) from the date of publication of this
Notification. If no information is received within the prescribed time limit or
the information received is incomplete, the Authority may record its findings
on the basis of the facts available on record in accordance with the
Anti-dumping Rules.
17. All
the interested parties are hereby advised to intimate their interest (including
the nature of interest) in the instant matter and file their questionnaire
responses and offer their comments to the domestic industry’s application
regarding the need to continue or otherwise the antidumping measures within 40
days from the date of initiation of this investigation.
Submission of Information on
Non-Confidential basis
18. In
case confidentiality is claimed on any part of the questionnaire’s response/submissions,
the same must be submitted in two separate sets (a) marked as Confidential
(with title, index, number of pages, etc.) and (b) other set marked as Non Confidential
(with title, index, number of pages, etc.). All the information supplied must
be clearly marked as either “confidential” or “non-confidential” at the top of
each page.
19. Information
supplied without any confidential marking shall be treated as nonconfidential and the Authority shall be at liberty to
allow the other interested parties to inspect any such non-confidential
information. Two (2) copies of the confidential version and five (05) copies of
the non confidential version along with soft copies
of both the versions must be submitted by all the interested parties.
20. For
information claimed as confidential; the supplier of the information is
required to provide a good cause statement along with the supplied information
as to why such information cannot be disclosed and/or why summarization of such
information is not possible.
21. The
non-confidential version is required to be a replica of the confidential
version with the confidential information preferably indexed or blanked out
/summarized depending upon the information on which confidentiality is claimed.
The non-confidential summary must be in sufficient detail to permit a
reasonable understanding of the substance of the information furnished on
confidential basis. However, in exceptional circumstances, parties submitting
the confidential information may indicate that such information is not
susceptible to summarization; a statement of reasons why summarization is not
possible must be provided to the satisfaction of the Authority.
22. The
Authority may accept or reject the request for confidentiality on examination
of the nature of the information submitted. If the Authority is satisfied that
the request for confidentiality is not warranted or the supplier of the
information is either unwilling to make the information public or to authorize
its disclosure in generalized or summary form, it may disregard such
information.
23. Any
submission made without a meaningful non-confidential version thereof or without
a good cause statement on the confidentiality claim may not be taken on record
by the Authority. The Authority on being satisfied and accepting the need for
confidentiality of the information provided; shall not disclose it to any party
without specific authorization of the party providing such information.
Inspection of Public File
24. In
terms of Rule 6(7) any interested party may inspect the public file containing nonconfidential versions of the evidence submitted by other
interested parties.
Non-cooperation
25. In
case any interested party refuses access to and otherwise does not provide necessary
information within a reasonable period, or significantly impedes the
investigation, the Authority may declare such interested party as
non-cooperative and record its findings on the basis of the facts available to
it and make such recommendations to the Central Government as deemed fit.